dismissedSEP122024_03B52032024-09-12 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center
This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The petitioner proposed to run an e-commerce company manufacturing accessible kitchen appliances (automatic doors and cabinets) to improve accessibility for people with physical disabilities, initially based in Minnesota with plans for nationwide and eventual international distribution.
Field: accessible interior design and cabinet manufacturing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner has not shown how her proposed endeavor specifically has national implications within her particular field.”
“the record does not show the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its future clients to impact the field of accessible interior design”
“she has not shown that her company's future staffing levels, business activity, and associated tax revenue stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Minnesota or the U.S.”
“she has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where her company operates is economically depressed, that she would employ a significant population of workers in that area”
“they do not indicate that government has an interest in the Petitioner's planned business activities to establish an accessible interior design services and cabinet manufacturing company”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“it does not demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- media · discounted
“they do not indicate that government has an interest in the Petitioner's planned business activities”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the projected revenues outlined in the business plan indicate that her company has growth potential, it does not demonstrate”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO faulted the Petitioner for not showing her business operated in an economically depressed area or would employ a significant local workforce, applying Dhanasar's 'economically depressed area' language as a near-requirement for economic-impact arguments; cites Flores v. Garland on discretionary nature of NIW grants.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers